Do Games Need To Be Fun?

[BreakfastMan]

Yes.

Games are entertainment = For Fun.

I think that games have to be fun. What you described I would more describe as an interactive narrative.

This. Games that aren't fun are iterative narratives. Same goes for some movies, I wouldn't call "Saving Private Ryan" entertainment, it's a grim narrative of war.

I dunno, that seems unnecessarily obtuse and complicated. I mean, going by your movie example, The Shining (which I did not find entertaining) is not a movie, but a grim experience of madness and isolation, while Phantasm (which I did) is a movie?

Besides who are you to say what games are "for"? For some they are a form of entertainment, for others a form of escapism, for others a hobby.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Nahhhh not really but I won't play a game if it's not fun. Yes, how pretentious of me.

I'll take Vanquish over Limbo any day.

Just so long as you don't look down on those of us who tend to enjoy the later more than the former, everything be cool.

 

[shrekfan246]

No reason they need to be fun - they just have to be something someone would want to experience.

Like Zhukov said, /thread right here.

I can count plenty of times I've been enjoying a game while playing - But not necessarily because I was having "fun" at the time. I wouldn't say Amnesia: The Dark Descent is a particularly "fun" game, but I certainly enjoyed my time with it.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. 52 card pick-up isn't fun but its a game. A game is just a structured form of play, fun isn't a requirement. Similarly, a video game is a structured set of rules with some winning and losing condition. Fun isn't part of the equation. That said, your going to sell more copies of a fun game then an unfun one.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Here I was, all ready to smack you down and such. But you made some good points, and have swayed my opinion. Also, I've played this game.

I played this little internet game that was meant to be about the North Korean border where you basically crawled through some barbed wire and died. It wasn't fun. It was still something I consider a game, and it left a big impression on me.

Anyways, don't really worry about

Spoiler: this.

I reapeat: Please don't call me a pretentious wanker!

*cowers*

Most of the people on this site aren't that bad, especially when you make such interesting and insightful posts.

 

[Joccaren]

They need to be entertaining.

However, if you want me, or millions of others, to buy your game - it had better be fun, though the definition of 'Fun' will change from person to person {I personally don't find CoD or anything fun, whilst playing Sins of a Solar Empire, or Civ IV, or Arkham City, or a number of other games, I do find fun}.

 

[RN7]

Not necessarily, "fun" to play, but "entertaining". A game's purpose is to engage the player. It can do this by being fun. Or it can make you think, should that thinking lead you to wanting to play more. All in all, games have to be an experience that you want to partake in. Same as any other medium: book, movie, television, painting, sculpture, interpretative dance show, etc.

 

[kortin]

Nope. A game simply needs to be engaging. It needs to get you interested in the game and make you want to continue playing it. Most of the time it IS done by being fun, but it's also very possible to make a game that you wouldn't say "Oh joy, I had a grand ol' time playin' that one!" but you still come out of the game satisfied.

 

[octafish]

I am more often than not, attracted to games that are heavily invested in story telling, these don't have to be "fun" for me to find them engaging, and I don't find a lot of things "fun" that others do. I played through COD4 recently and while I found it occasionally fun (Charlie don't Surf is fun I can't think of much else that is though) the sory was engaging enough (and the games reputation was strong enough) for me to keep playing.

Fun is subjective though. I can't stand the AssCreed games, I'm not a huge fan of run 'n' gun single player shooters, and fighting games and platformers make my eyes glaze over in boredom. These games are not fun for me. I do like methodical tactical shooters and stealth games, dogfighting and racing sims, RPGs and turn based strategy, these things are fun to me and not to others.

 

[zeit]

Yes, games need to be fun.

Also, water is wet, the sky is blue, and the Pope is Catholic.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Maybe not 'fun' per se, but they should at least be enjoyable and engaging.

so why do we think games have to be fun?

Presumably because most people associate the word 'game' with the word 'fun.' As as result the concept of a type of game that isn't doesn't have to be fun is probably a preposterous idea like saying that elephants grow on trees or something equally as absurd.

EDIT: Corrected myself.

 

[Strain42]

YOU PRETENTIOUS WANKER! (sorry, couldn't resist. I don't really mean it)

Yes, I do firmly believe that games need to be fun.

If a game has a nice story, that's nice. But I'm not paying 60 bucks when I can get a better story that will probably last me longer for about 8 bucks.

Fun should always be the primary objective of a video game, and some games create fun through different means, and people have fun through different things.

Whether it's fun through challenge, engagement, or even just watching and listening while characters interact, you should be having fun when you play a video game.

If you're not having fun, than why are you wasting your time when you could be doing something productive...or at least something that actually is fun.

 

[2733]

all a game has to do is engage on some level. Fun is just one way to engage a player and not always the best one.

 

[DustyDrB]

They should be engaging. I don't have fun reading Cormac McCarthy, but I'm deeply enthralled and the experience lingers with me after I put the book up.

 

[HarryScull]

Maybe not 'fun' per se, but they should at least be enjoyable and engaging.

so why do we think games have to be fun?

Presumably because most people associate the word 'game' with the word 'fun.' As as result the concept of a type of game that isn't doesn't have to be fun is probably a preposterous idea like saying that elephants grow on trees or something equally as absurd.

EDIT: Corrected myself.

you mean elephants dont grow on trees!?!

(jokes)

 

[somonels]

This appears to be the new new 'Hot Topic.' Games Video games are entertainment products, they do not have to be 'fun,' just entertain the buyer.

 

[Knight Templar]

Of course they don't need to be fun, but they should be a, lets say 'positive experience'. Not all books are or attempt to be fun, nor movies or plays or what-have-you. Games are not simply children's toys, they do not all need to be fun.

But there does need to be some reason to play the game, some people just assume that the only thing that games can offer is fun. That something prevents a game from being anything else. This is absurd, only the most inane semantics can make this true.

 

[Austin Howe]

I think the problem is that "fun" seriously varies from age-to-age. I mean, I find analyzing and pulling apart some postmodern weirdness like MGS2 positively thrilling. Or I hear about Ico and think "that concept really speaks to me."

Games are almost never going to be not fun when they're good. This is why even good, well-written, important games like the Metal Gear, Legacy of Kain, Team Ico, and early Final Fantasy titles are all fun, despite half of those featuring mediocre gameplay. Only the really depressing stuff like Silent Hill or Freedom Bridge is going to be not fun, but that's because that's what they want to be.

Not fun games are only bad when they intended to be fun.